Ted Olson goes to media in defense of SCOTUS and same-sex marriage. He may be the next Att. General, who knows?
He claimed this (SCOTUS dictate) is a prescribed Constitutional process. This is judicial supremacy. Where exactly is judicial supremacy spelled out in the Constitution?
Then he stood on the old claim this is a protection from majority rule. But where is that minority rule in the Constitution? We go to the ballot to elect our Representatives, and now Senators. What if you told them that the loser wins the election – minority rules? They have overturned the voice of the people in elections.
And Dems stood against the rights of the minority by killing the filibuster for presidential nominees in Congress. Remember Fili the Filibuster was their hero of Democrats under Bush. It was a necessary Constitutional protection, then.
What they have done and argued for is no boundaries on marriage. Morphed into whatever the individuals want it to be. So now any boundary they claim there is can be argued against in the same way. If someone wants to marry a child then what? You can say there should be age restrictions but why?
So we need an age of consent, that is a limitation/restriction to someone. For that matter why does it have to be human beings? Aren’t you, then, denying someone their relationship? The point is, of course, there has to be some limitations or boundaries on marriage. There are limitations on many other things. There sure seems to be a limitation on the will of the people.
RightRing | Bullright